Looking for a Photoshop alternative that won’t cost a penny? GIMP 3.0 is free, open-source, has some powerful image editing tools, and now has a cleaner layout and non-destructive editing.

Why it’s worth a look:

The recently updated GIMP has a new interface that’s is easier to navigate, and there’s non-destructive layer editing i.e., you can apply filters without losing the original. It also supports modern image formats like JPEG XL and QOI.

How to get started:

– Download GIMP for free at www.gimp.org. It works on Windows, macOS and Linux.
– On launch, you’ll be greeted with a new Welcome screen. From here you can start a new project or open an existing one.
– Use the ‘Create’ tab to begin editing right away.

What’s new and handy:

– The ‘Personalise’ tab lets you customise the colour scheme, font and icon size to suit your screen and workflow.
– Want to tweak a layer? You can now apply effects like blur or red-eye removal non-destructively, then turn them on/off with a tick box — no more irreversible changes.
– Hit the forward slash ( / ) key to bring up the new search tool. Type in the action you’re looking for (e.g., “sharpen” or “scale”) to see all matching results, where they’re found in the menus, and their keyboard shortcuts.
– For quick walkthroughs of features, click ‘Help > User Manual’ or try ‘Tip of the Day’ for quick walkthroughs of features.

Pro-Tip: GIMP’s filter library is massive — try combining blur effects with the high-pass filter to create sharp, dramatic edits without overdoing it.

Note: Other image editing software is available — both paid-for (such as Adobe Photoshop and others) and free. This tip simply highlights one of the free options you may find useful. We’re not affiliated with or endorsing GIMP — just sharing it as a potentially helpful tool.

UK parcel delivery firm, Evri, has teamed up with a US robotics company to test four-legged autonomous deliveries in real neighbourhoods, starting in Barnsley.

The Future at Your Front Door?

The initiative, launched in partnership with US robotics firm Boston Dynamics, is testing the use of autonomous robotic dogs to support last-mile delivery operations in real residential environments.

Spot

The robot (named “Spot”) is already well-known in the tech world for its advanced mobility and has previously been used in industries ranging from construction to defence. However, it’s been reconfigured in this case to tackle the ever-growing demands of urban parcel delivery. With this unusual trial, Evri has become the first UK parcel company to experiment with robotic dog deliveries, thereby showing how the “last mile” of logistics might look in years to come, and getting some positive headlines and visibility for Evri in the process.

Why Now and Why Barnsley?

The trial is one of the ways, among ongoing pressures in the delivery industry, to find more sustainable, efficient and scalable solutions, especially for the all-important last-mile stretch that gets parcels from a depot to a customer’s door. This final leg is often the most complex and costly part of the delivery chain, with challenges including traffic congestion, failed deliveries, limited parking, and high labour demands.

The trial also follows Evri’s 50th anniversary celebrations last year, which included a retrospective look at how delivery and consumer habits have changed over the past five decades. As part of the campaign, Evri surveyed the public on what they thought the future of delivery might look like. Interestingly, only 16 per cent of respondents believed robots would eventually be delivering their parcels, yet for some customers in Barnsley, that prediction is already becoming a reality.

According to Evri, the move is part of a broader strategy to future-proof its operations through smart, scalable automation. Speaking about the initiative, Marcus Hunter, Chief Technology Officer at Evri, said: “We’re constantly looking for ways to innovate, and the trial with Spot is one of several projects focused on testing new technologies that could support our couriers and enhance service levels. It’s about being ready for the future—not replacing people, but giving them new tools.”

Barnsley was selected for the pilot due to its mixed urban and residential layout, making it an ideal testing ground for the robot’s capabilities. It also aligns with Barnsley Council’s ambitions to position the town as a testbed for innovation and emerging tech.

Councillor Robin Franklin, Cabinet Spokesperson for Regeneration and Culture, said: “This trial puts Barnsley on the map when it comes to cutting-edge innovation. We’re proud to support projects that explore how technology can improve everyday life for our residents while supporting green and inclusive growth.”

What the Robot Dog Can Do

Spot is the brainchild of Boston Dynamics, the Massachusetts-based robotics company renowned for its eerily lifelike machines. Weighing just under 30kg and powered by AI and a host of onboard sensors, Spot can:

– Navigate streets and pavements autonomously.

– Climb stairs and kerbs.

– Avoid obstacles and safely interact with its environment.

– Carry up to 14kg of payload, including parcel lockers.

– Operate in all weathers and uneven terrain.

Parcels Secure

For the Evri trial, Spot has been fitted with a secure, camera-enabled delivery compartment. Once it reaches a property, the robot identifies the correct address, sends a delivery notification to the recipient, and waits while the customer unlocks the compartment via a mobile app or pin code.

A Hybrid Approach – A Robot Plus A Human Driver

Crucially, Spot can also “walk back” to its mobile hub, i.e. the parked delivery van or designated base station, before heading off to complete the next delivery. The hope is that this hybrid approach, combining autonomous robots with human drivers, could significantly cut the time and cost associated with short-distance drop-offs.

Why Robot Dogs?

It may sound gimmicky, but there are serious logistics challenges that robots like Spot aim to address. These include helping to address issues like:

– Labour shortages. The parcel sector has long struggled with staff shortages, especially in peak seasons. Robots could ease the pressure by handling short-range, repetitive tasks.

– Urban congestion. Smaller, legged robots can reach places that vans can’t, especially in pedestrian zones, gated communities or narrow terraced streets.

– Sustainability goals. Electric-powered robots generate no direct emissions and could help reduce reliance on diesel vans, particularly for “final 500-metre” delivery loops.

Emissions Cut

Also, according to Evri’s internal modelling, robotic solutions like Spot could cut last-mile emissions by up to 30 per cent if scaled properly. While that’s still speculative, it does show the potential for meaningful change, especially as local councils and clients demand greener operations.

How Does The Robot Delivery Actually Work?

During the pilot phase, Spot is operating alongside human drivers in Barnsley on select delivery rounds. The deliveries are carried out in the following way:

– The driver drops off Spot in a target area : A courier in a van arrives at a designated spot and releases Spot to begin deliveries within a defined radius.

– Autonomous navigation begins : Spot identifies its route using GPS and LIDAR systems, with backup human monitoring from a mobile control centre.

– The parcel drop-off : The robot approaches each address, sends a notification to the recipient, and waits until the parcel compartment is unlocked and retrieved.

– Returns and charges : Once all deliveries are complete, Spot returns to the van for charging and reloading.

All movements are monitored remotely in real-time, with fail-safes in place if something goes wrong. For now, the robots are accompanied by human operators during public testing, mainly to collect data and respond to any incidents.

Public Reaction

Predictably, the robot has certainly turned heads. Locals have been snapping photos and posting videos of Spot trotting down pavements with packages on board, drawing everything from excitement to scepticism. Some residents have reportedly praised the trial for its innovation and eco-potential.

Others, however, have expressed concern about safety, privacy and job security. Social media threads have raised questions about how the robot avoids pets, children, or even potential theft attempts. Evri has responded by highlighting Spot’s multiple sensors, 360-degree vision and secure delivery process. They’ve also reiterated that robots are intended to assist and not to replace human workers.

Reality Check

It seems that not everyone is on board with the robot revolution just yet. For example, industry analysts point to several limitations that could slow rollout of this kind of delivery service. For example:

– The high cost. Spot reportedly costs around £60,000 per unit, making widespread adoption a pricey prospect for now.

– Public infrastructure challenges. UK streets are not always robot-friendly, with uneven pavements, steep kerbs and cluttered environments.

– Accessibility. Older residents or those without smartphones may struggle with app-based delivery systems.

– The UK weather and vandalism. While Spot is designed to handle rain and stairs, freezing temperatures and tampering could pose risks.

There’s also a broader question about whether this technology is solving a real problem, or creating one? For example, some critics argue that delivery robots are a distraction from improving pay, training and conditions for human couriers, especially when the technology is still in its infancy.

That said, Evri insists this is just a trial and not a full-scale rollout. As Marcus Hunter, Chief Technology Officer at Evri says: “We’re testing, learning and listening,” and that “Technology should be part of the solution, not the whole answer.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While robot dog deliveries may still sound futuristic (plus the robot may look a bit intimidating to some), Evri’s trial may actually mark a more serious exploration of how UK logistics could evolve in the years ahead. With growing demand for faster, greener deliveries and ongoing pressure on urban infrastructure, innovations like Spot may no longer be just eye-catching experiments, but part of a broader rethink of how goods reach our doorsteps.

Crucially, as Evri is keen to point out, this is not about replacing drivers but is a hybrid approach, i.e. the robot is intended to work alongside human couriers, acting as a high-tech extension of the delivery network rather than a standalone solution. By handling short-distance or hard-to-access drop-offs, tools like Spot could help relieve pressure on drivers while improving efficiency at the most complex stage of the journey – the last mile.

Although it may seem like a novelty, many UK businesses are likely to be watching the trial closely. For example, more responsive, low-emission delivery methods could offer a competitive edge for retailers, particularly as customer expectations rise and sustainability commitments tighten. However, being realistic, practical hurdles, from system costs to infrastructure limitations and consumer adoption, will need to be tackled before robots like this can become part of everyday delivery operations.

The trial also reflects a growing appetite among local authorities to embrace emerging technologies. Towns like Barnsley are positioning themselves as testbeds for innovation, hoping to attract investment and future-proof their local economies. For communities, this opens the door to a more direct role in how technology is introduced and regulated on their streets.

In the end, Evri’s robot dog pilot may not be simply about PR or novelty, but a live test of what the future of parcel delivery could look like. Whether it leads to full-scale adoption or simply provides insights to shape future automation strategies, it’s a clear indication that the UK delivery sector is preparing for a more adaptable, tech-enabled future.

New research has revealed a sharp link between using screens in bed and disrupted sleep, while a separate study suggests that switching off mobile internet on smartphones may significantly boost focus and mental health, delivering cognitive benefits equivalent to turning back the clock by a decade!

Bed, Phone, No Sleep Concludes Norwegian Study

Using your phone in bed might feel harmless, even relaxing, but according to a major Norwegian study, it may be stealing your sleep and leaving you more tired than you realise. Conducted by researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, the study analysed survey responses from over 45,000 university students aged 18 to 28 as part of the nationally representative SHOT2022 health and wellbeing survey.

The researchers set out to explore how different types of screen activity, e.g. scrolling social media, watching videos, or browsing online, affect sleep when used in bed after lights-out.

The Findings

The researchers found that each extra hour spent on screen-based activities in bed was associated with:

– A 59 per cent increase in the odds of reporting insomnia symptoms.

– A 24-minute reduction in total sleep time.

The study also concluded that those who avoided screens in bed altogether were 24 per cent less likely to report symptoms of insomnia.

Dr Gunnhild Johnsen Hjetland, lead author of the study, noted: “We found no significant differences between social media and other screen activities, suggesting that screen use itself is the key factor in sleep disruption.”

New Insights

Interestingly, it wasn’t just the time spent, but also what people were doing with their devices that revealed new insights. For example, although the majority (69 per cent) used social media along with other screen activities, the subgroup who only used social media had the best sleep outcomes, reporting the least insomnia and the longest sleep duration of any group.

This finding appears to fly in the face of the idea that social media is uniquely disruptive. It seems, therefore, that it may instead reflect a social connection benefit, or simply the fact that those with existing sleep problems may avoid social media at bedtime and lean towards more passive activities like videos or music.

How Screens May Disrupt Sleep

The Norwegian researchers explored several possible explanations for the link between screen time and sleep loss, including:

– Displacement – screens push back bedtimes, stealing time directly from sleep.

– Light exposure – screen light may suppress melatonin, the hormone that regulates sleep.

– Cognitive arousal – engaging with interactive content keeps the brain alert.

– Notifications – late-night alerts can disrupt sleep continuity.

The results strongly pointed to displacement as the dominant factor. In other words, more screen time simply meant less time allocated to sleep, regardless of content. As the researchers explained: “If increased arousal was an important contributor, we would expect to see different effects based on activity type. We didn’t”.

The team also acknowledged the limits of the study. For example, the data was self-reported, meaning it may carry subjective biases, and the study was cross-sectional, so causality can’t be firmly established. As Dr Hjetland said: “This study cannot determine causality — for example, whether screen use causes insomnia or if students with insomnia use screens more.”

Switching Off to Switch Back On – The Internet Block Study

While the Norwegian study focused on what happens when people use their phones at night, another recent experiment investigated what happens when mobile internet access is taken away altogether.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia ran a month-long randomised controlled trial involving 467 adults across Canada and the US. The study involved installing the Freedom app on participants’ smartphones to block all mobile internet for two weeks—while still allowing calls and texts. Desktop internet access remained unaffected.

The Freedom app is a digital wellbeing tool that lets users block access to distracting websites, apps, or the entire internet across their devices. In this study, it was used to completely block mobile internet on smartphones for two weeks, while still allowing calls and texts, helping participants disconnect from constant online access without cutting them off from essential communication. The results were surprisingly powerful. For example, participants who blocked mobile internet for two weeks saw significant improvements in:

– Sustained attention – a measurable improvement equivalent to reversing 10 years of cognitive decline!

– Mental health – reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety, outperforming the average effects of antidepressants.

– Subjective well-being – increased life satisfaction and mood.

Key Findings

Two key findings of the research were that 91 per cent of participants improved on at least one of the psychological measures, and nearly three-quarters improved in overall well-being or mental health. As the researchers concluded: “Despite the many benefits mobile internet offers, reducing the constant connection to the digital world can have large positive effects”.

The Benefits of Disconnection

The study essentially dug into possible explanations and found that people who lost mobile internet:

– Spent significantly more time socialising in person, exercising, or spending time outdoors.

– Slept slightly more each night.

– Felt more in control of their attention and behaviour.

These lifestyle shifts helped explain the benefits to mood and focus. Notably, screen time almost halved during the intervention, from over five hours a day to just over two in the most successful group. “Our results suggest that constant connection to the online world comes at a cost, since psychological functioning improves when this connection is reduced,” said the study team.

What It All Means – And Why It Matters Now

Together, these two studies appear to tell a compelling story about how our devices may shape daily life, and nightly rest. While it’s long been suspected that smartphones disrupt attention and sleep, these findings go further by highlighting not just correlations, but in the case of the second study, causal evidence of real cognitive and emotional improvements when mobile internet is switched off.

The implications are wide-ranging. For example:

– For individuals, simple changes, such as avoiding screens in bed or trialling internet blockers, could deliver big mental health and sleep benefits.

– For parents, the results support efforts like the “Smartphone-Free Childhood” movement, which urges families to delay phone access for children until age 14.

– For employers, it seems that encouraging healthy boundaries around screen time could improve employee focus and reduce digital burnout.

– For app and tech developers, the research may make a case for designing “focus modes” that do more than dim the screen, thereby offering real disconnection.

These results also dovetail with previous research. A growing body of studies has linked excessive smartphone use to poorer sleep, anxiety, attention lapses, and reduced productivity. What’s new here is the scale of the benefit from even temporary restrictions.

A Word of Caution

However, it’s worth noting the limitations. For example, both studies relied on participants motivated to reduce phone use or who were already concerned about their sleep. The Canadian study also struggled with compliance where only about a quarter of participants fully followed the internet block, although benefits were still seen across the board.

The Norwegian survey’s self-reported data also can’t definitively prove that screen time causes insomnia, and other variables, like personality, stress levels, or pre-existing health conditions, may well play a role.

However, with thousands of participants and consistent patterns across both studies, the message is becoming harder to ignore i.e., how we use our phones, especially before bed, could be shaping not just how we sleep, but how we think, feel and focus during the day.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Taken together, these studies may make a strong case for reassessing how people use smartphones, especially in the hours before bed. While neither piece of research is without its limitations, the evidence appears to point to a growing truth that’s hard to ignore, i.e. that constant digital connectivity may be undermining both our rest and our resilience. For individuals, the takeaway is relatively straightforward. Steering clear of screens in bed, experimenting with internet blockers like Freedom, or simply becoming more mindful of screen habits could offer measurable improvements in sleep quality, attention span, and overall mental health. These aren’t vague lifestyle tweaks but are evidence-based strategies that can deliver real, tangible benefits.

For UK businesses, the implications are also increasingly difficult to sideline. With workplace wellbeing now firmly on the agenda, there’s a compelling argument for employers to support staff in setting digital boundaries, particularly in remote or hybrid working environments. Offering advice, policies or even tech tools that encourage disconnection out of hours could help reduce burnout and improve focus, thereby boosting productivity without adding to the always-on culture. There’s also a growing market opportunity for app developers and digital service providers to create smarter, more adaptive tools that genuinely support wellbeing rather than distract from it.

At the broader societal level, the findings lend weight to calls for a more cautious approach to digital technology, especially where children and young people are concerned. Campaigns like Smartphone-Free Childhood are gaining traction for a reason. The data now suggests that limiting online access, at least some of the time, could have far-reaching psychological and developmental benefits.

These studies reinforce what many of us already know i.e., our devices are powerful, but so is the choice to step away. As more evidence emerges, the challenge for individuals, businesses and policymakers alike will be how to strike the right balance, harnessing the benefits of digital life without letting it quietly erode our most fundamental human needs.

Nearly half of UK professionals would rather leave their jobs than return to the office five days a week, according to new research from recruitment giant Hays.

Disconnect

The findings of the Hays survey appear to highlight a growing disconnect between employee preferences and employer policies on post-pandemic working models and, it seems, the potential consequences could be severe. With hybrid working now the norm for most office-based staff, businesses pushing for a full return risk not just resistance, but an outright exodus of talent.

Hybrid Working Still Dominates

Since the pandemic reshaped traditional work models almost overnight, hybrid working has emerged as the clear favourite for many professionals. Hays’ Spring 2025 Employment Trends survey, which canvassed over 8,000 workers and employers across the UK, found that a massive 77 per cent of professionals are now working in some form of hybrid setup. The most common arrangement, three days in the office and two days remote, is the one adopted by a quarter of all companies surveyed.

Although the survey highlights how one in five employers now allows staff to choose their own working pattern, this figure has dropped slightly from 26 per cent in the previous survey, suggesting a slight shift towards more structured expectations.

Very Few Companies Plan To Increase Office Attendance

The overall preference, however, is clear, and not just among employees. While a minority of companies are increasing office attendance, only 8 per cent of employers said they plan to enforce a full-time return within the next six months. Meanwhile, 66 per cent admitted they were concerned about potential backlash if they did.

Why Don’t Workers Want To Return To The Office?

According to the Hays survey, the key factor that’s fuelling this resistance to returning full-time is cost. Hays found that 73 per cent of professionals cited commuting expenses as a major factor in their reluctance to come back to the office more often. A full return would lead to higher costs for 88 per cent of workers, and the financial strain is particularly pronounced among women.

For example, 59 per cent of women surveyed said commuting would significantly impact their finances, compared with 41 per cent of men. This gender gap also plays out in the headline figure, i.e. while 48 per cent of all respondents said they would consider quitting over a full-time RTO mandate, that figure rose to 58 per cent for women, and fell to 42 per cent for men.

Pam Lindsay-Dunn, COO of Hays UK and Ireland, has warned that businesses could be on the brink of a talent crisis if they push too hard, saying, “Employers need to realise they are at serious risk of losing top talent if they make a full-time return-to-office compulsory,” and that, “Our research clearly shows how highly professionals still value the option to work from home.”

Other Factors

Although cost was cited as the main reason to resist returning full-time to the office in the Hays survey, other factors known to make a hybrid work model preferable include:

– Work-life balance. Many workers now organise their lives around flexible routines, from school pickups to avoiding rush-hour stress.

– Employee wellbeing. Studies have repeatedly linked flexible working to lower stress levels and improved mental health.

– Productivity. As highlighted by the Hays survey, a majority of employers (52 per cent) said there was no difference in productivity between home and office workers. Another 19 per cent said remote workers performed better, while only 13 per cent believed office-based staff were more productive.

‘Look At The Bigger Picture,’ Hays Urges Employers

Despite the push from some corporate giants to increase in-office time, the data suggests this approach is increasingly out of step with employee sentiment. Recent moves from companies like Amazon, PwC and Santander to tighten RTO rules have already triggered staff unrest, and Hays’ findings suggest the UK workforce may not respond kindly to similar measures elsewhere.

Hays’ Lindsay-Dunn has advised employers to weigh their options carefully, saying: “Before making any significant changes to their current working model, employers must look at the bigger picture,” and “That means factoring in commuting costs, wellbeing, productivity and the benefits that hybrid working brings to both the individual and the business.”

Indeed, previous research by the University of Pittsburgh warns that companies pushing full-time office returns risk triggering a “brain drain”, with high performers, particularly women, more likely to leave in favour of flexible employers.

Retention Risks and Recruitment Challenges

For UK businesses already grappling with talent shortages and recruitment pressures, the findings from the Hays Spring 2025 Employment Trends survey raise red flags. If nearly half the professional workforce is willing to walk over RTO demands, the potential for disruption is hard to ignore. Employers may, for example, face:

– Higher recruitment costs. Replacing experienced staff is expensive and time-consuming.

– Loss of institutional knowledge. Departing staff can take critical skills and insights with them.

– Brand damage. Perceptions of inflexibility may deter top candidates from applying.

At a time when retaining skilled staff is already a challenge, a misstep on working policy could prove costly.

For example, while many companies have increased expectations around office time, in reality, actual enforcement remains rare. This may reflect a broader recognition that rigid models could backfire, particularly when productivity data doesn’t strongly favour office-based work.

Not Everyone’s A Fan of Hybrid Working

While hybrid working is widely embraced, it’s not without its critics. For example, some business leaders argue that in-person collaboration fosters creativity, innovation, and company culture, particularly for newer staff or junior employees. Others raise concerns around remote management, communication gaps, and the long-term impact on team cohesion.

However, it should be noted here that evidence on these points is mixed. For example, research from the University of Melbourne found that companies with flexible working policies performed better on the stock market over the long term. This could mean that while some managers may feel more in control with staff on-site, this doesn’t always translate to better outcomes.

Also, full flexibility may not suit every worker. For example, some employees, especially those in shared accommodation or with limited space, may prefer office environments where they can focus. That’s why some employers still offer office-first policies with optional home working, depending on role, seniority or team dynamics.

That said, Hays’ latest findings suggest that forcing a full return across the board could do more harm than good.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this research makes clear is that the conversation around work patterns is far from over. While some employers are moving to reassert control over when and where work happens, many employees remain firmly committed to the flexibility they’ve grown used to since the pandemic. Hybrid working has shifted from being a stopgap solution to a preferred way of life for a large part of the UK workforce, and attempts to reverse that may meet more resistance than some leaders expect.

For UK businesses, the Hays survey figures appear to indicate that poorly handled return-to-office policy may not just lead to internal dissatisfaction, but it could lead to the loss of valued staff, weakened morale, and a dent in employer reputation. In a competitive labour market, especially in knowledge-based sectors, retaining skilled professionals means understanding what motivates them, and right now, for many, that includes the autonomy and balance hybrid work affords.

However, it’s not only employers who have decisions to make. Employees, too, are weighing their priorities, e.g. cost of living pressures, childcare responsibilities, commuting time and mental wellbeing are all influencing what the “ideal” work setup looks like. While not every role or sector can offer the same level of flexibility, the evidence suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach won’t cut it.

The implications may also apply to other stakeholders as well, e.g. from HR teams and line managers tasked with navigating new expectations, to policymakers and transport planners grappling with changes in commuting patterns. Even commercial landlords and local high streets could feel the knock-on effects of long-term shifts in where and how people work.

Overall, the Hays findings could be seen as serving as a timely reminder that workplace culture is evolving, and any business that wants to keep its best people may need to evolve with it.

Microsoft has upgraded its Copilot assistant into a fully agentic AI tool that can browse the web, complete real-world tasks, and remember personal details — marking a major leap in the AI arms race.

Amazon Too

Meanwhile, Amazon has joined the push towards ‘agentic’ AI with a new shopping assistant that can browse third-party websites and make purchases on your behalf, a clear sign that AI is no longer just answering questions, but starting to take real action.

A New Era For Microsoft Copilot?

This latest overhaul appears to mark an evolution in what Microsoft calls its vision for a “true AI companion.” The trending AI news from Microsoft (on the company’s 50th birthday – yes 50!) is that Copilot now supports web-based actions, letting users issue commands that the bot then carries out independently, e.g. from booking holidays to buying gifts.

How?

Microsoft has partnered with popular platforms like Booking.com, OpenTable, Kayak, and Tripadvisor to allow Copilot to take care of these tasks without switching tabs. For example, if a user asks Copilot to “book a table for two at 7pm tonight,” it will attempt to arrange this behind the scenes.

It seems that it’s not just limited to actions. For example, the new Copilot can now do some fairly impressive, helpful, and time-saving things like:

– Track online deals and alert users to price drops.

– Analyse video in real time via the user’s phone camera to answer context-aware questions.

– View the desktop to help organise files, adjust settings, or assist with projects.

– Generate podcasts based on documents or topics users care about.

– Turn notes into structured documents using a new Pages tool.

This apparent shift towards autonomy moves Copilot closer to what Microsoft CEO of AI Mustafa Suleyman calls your ‘AI companion’. As Suleyman says: “Copilot helps you stay organised, think clearly, learn more intuitively,” and that “It’s there when you need a quick factual answer… or when you fancy just downloading after a hard day.”

Memory and Personalisation

Perhaps the most transformative (and potentially controversial) upgrade is Copilot’s memory. For example, Copilot can now learn a user’s preferences over time, e.g. favourite foods, the dog’s name, or a specific project at work. In Microsoft’s words, it remembers “not just what you said, but who you are.”

Although some may find this idea a little uncomfortable, Microsoft’s point is that this allows Copilot to offer more tailored suggestions, reminders, and proactive help. Essentially, Microsoft now wants Copilot to be a digital assistant that actually knows its user, rather than starting fresh with each interaction.

Understandably, privacy concerns are already surfacing, but Microsoft insists users retain full control. For example, users can choose what Copilot remembers, delete specific “memories,” or opt out altogether via a dedicated dashboard.

Vision, Deep Research, and More (AI That Sees and Thinks!)

The new Copilot Vision feature enables the AI to “see” what a user’s phone’s camera sees and respond accordingly. For example, a user can point their phone at a mystery plant and ask what it is, or let Copilot scan their home office and suggest layout improvements.

Meanwhile, the Deep Research function is designed for knowledge workers and business users. It pulls together information from websites, documents, and images to deliver detailed answers to complex questions, much like ChatGPT’s research capabilities or Google’s Gemini Deep Research.

Also, for anyone who’s ever spent too long scrolling, AI-generated podcasts now offer a hands-free way to absorb information. In what seems an amazing development, Copilot actually creates a back-and-forth dialogue between two synthetic hosts, based on a user’s chosen topic, with the user even able to interrupt them to ask follow-up questions.

For Business Users

While consumer features have grabbed the headlines, many of these updates actually have strong implications for business users too.

The new Pages tool lets Copilot organise a user’s scattered notes and research into a shareable, editable canvas, thereby echoing functionality found in tools like Notion or ChatGPT’s Canvas. Action-taking capabilities could save hours in admin, letting users delegate routine bookings or purchases with a single prompt.

For time-pressed professionals, Copilot can therefore become part PA, part researcher and part assistant, a proposition that could significantly enhance productivity.

Microsoft’s AI Gamble

Microsoft’s move couldn’t come at a more pivotal moment. The company has faced criticism for lagging behind OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini, particularly in the consumer space. Copilot was often seen as useful but uninspiring. However, these new capabilities may be the way to place it firmly back in the race and in some areas, perhaps even a step ahead.

By integrating Copilot more deeply into Windows and expanding its personalisation, Microsoft is playing to its strengths, i.e. existing platform dominance, long-term user relationships, and enterprise credibility. It’s an ecosystem play, not just a standalone app.

However, it’s not without risk. For example, questions remain about how well Copilot can actually perform tasks on websites, or what happens when it makes a mistake, especially in business-critical settings. Microsoft hasn’t published detailed data about error rates or site compatibility and, like similar agents, Copilot can be blocked by websites concerned about revenue loss from users bypassing their apps.

Amazon’s New Shopping Agent

Not to be outdone, Amazon is testing a new agent called ‘Buy for Me’. It’s designed to go one step further, if Amazon doesn’t stock what a user’s looking for, it sends its AI to scour third-party sites, complete the purchase, and fill in your payment and shipping details. This all happens with users never having to leave the Amazon app. The AI visits the target site, selects the item, and checks out, all powered by Amazon’s Nova AI models and Anthropic’s Claude.

Possible Issues

Amazon insists this process is secure. For example, billing information is encrypted, and Amazon itself can’t see what a user is ordering from third-party sellers. However, trust is likely to be a sticking point, i.e. ensuring users feel comfortable with the idea that Amazon’s agent is able to buy the right things in the right quantity, and won’t spend too much of their money.

Also, it seems that returns and exchanges are handled via the original seller, not Amazon, so this hands-off approach could add friction if anything goes wrong.

The Rise of Agentic AI

Copilot’s updates and Amazon’s new shopping agent are part of the industry’s shift from “chatbots that talk” to “agents that do”, a trend many have dubbed agentic AI. Instead of merely suggesting actions, these tools can now perform them, often without direct user supervision.

OpenAI’s Operator, Google’s agents, and Perplexity’s prepaid-card shopping bot are all part of this wave. However, Microsoft’s scale and Amazon’s reach could see them dominate the next phase of adoption.

For users, especially professionals, this could mean offloading a growing list of digital tasks. On the downside it could also mean having to grapple with questions around accuracy, oversight, and trust. Although the app updates have arrived and AI agents can now make decisions for users, whether they should be able to and how much control users are prepared to give up are still likely to be pertinent questions.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

By moving from reactive tools to proactive agents, Microsoft and Amazon are signalling a new era where AI doesn’t simply assist with tasks but actively takes them on. For everyday users, the promise is convenience and saved time. For businesses, particularly in the UK, it introduces new opportunities for productivity gains, automation, and customer service innovation, as well as fresh challenges around trust, oversight, and data governance.

For Microsoft, the evolution of Copilot into a more personalised and action-capable AI companion could help it stand out in a crowded market, especially among enterprise users already embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem. The ability for Copilot to act across websites, manage files, handle research, and learn user preferences may appeal to time-strapped teams juggling multiple workflows. If users can trust it and if it performs reliably, it could reduce the cognitive load and admin burden across roles, from project managers to marketing teams. However, it is whether questions around accuracy, transparency, and the limits of AI autonomy can be clearly answered that will affect adoption at scale.

Amazon’s move, while more commercially focused, appears to be pushing the envelope in a different way. Letting an AI complete purchases across third-party sites takes convenience to a new level, but also hands over a considerable amount of trust. For e-commerce operators, this could be a game-changer or a serious disruption, depending on whether their platforms are bypassed or embraced. For Amazon, it’s a chance to expand its dominance beyond its own catalogue, pulling even more of the retail experience under its umbrella.

For UK businesses, the wider implications here are worth considering. For example, AI agents could streamline internal operations, transform customer journeys, and create new service models entirely. However, they’ll also raise new questions about accountability, user control, and competitive fairness, especially as tech giants continue to roll out proprietary agents that act on users’ behalf. It seems, therefore, that the next phase of AI will not just be about what tools can say, but what they can actually do (on our behalf), and who’s actually responsible when they do it.

The UK government has unveiled sweeping new cyber legislation that could see organisations hit with fines of up to £100,000 (per day!) if they fail to respond to threats in time – a move that dramatically raises the stakes for IT providers, critical service operators, plus their supply chains.

Tough New Rules Aimed at Critical Infrastructure and the Tech Supply Chain

The draft Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR) Bill, formally outlined this week by technology secretary Peter Kyle, seems to be setting out a more aggressive approach to cyber regulation in response to what ministers describe as “unprecedented threats” to the UK’s digital and physical infrastructure.

Crucially, the bill expands the scope of current regulations and will bring managed service providers (MSPs), IT suppliers, and potentially datacentre operators into the same regulatory framework as public utilities and emergency services. This means that for the first time, commercial tech firms (up to 1,000 of them by current estimates) could be legally obliged to meet strict cybersecurity standards or face financial penalties.

“Economic growth is the cornerstone of our Plan for Change,” said Kyle, “And ensuring the security of the vital services which will deliver that growth is non-negotiable.”

Three Core Pillars – and a Sharp Set of Teeth!

The new bill is built on three pillars. First, widening the scope of the UK’s existing Network and Information Systems (NIS) regulations to include more types of organisations. Second, giving regulators stronger powers to enforce those rules and third, allowing government to rapidly update the rules in response to new and emerging cyber threats.

What’s new (and raising a few eyebrows) is the addition of discretionary government powers to issue binding cyber directives in real-time. For example, if an in-scope organisation receives a formal order to patch a vulnerability or improve cyber defences in response to an active threat and fails to comply, it could face daily fines of up to £100,000, or 10% of turnover, whichever is higher.

The message, therefore, appears to be that falling short isn’t just risky but could be ruinously expensive.

Why Supply Chain Security Is Now Front and Centre

The bill changes how cyber risk is perceived at the national level. For example, instead of focusing solely on headline-grabbing ransomware events or attacks on high-profile utilities, the government now appears to be turning its attention to the digital supply chain, i.e. the vast network of IT support firms, software providers, and cloud service operators that underpin the UK economy.

For example, the Cloud Hopper espionage campaign, which targeted MSPs to indirectly infiltrate governments and corporations, is a cautionary tale of how supply chain vulnerabilities can be weaponised at scale. Likewise, the recent breach of the Ministry of Defence’s payroll system showed how even indirect routes into sensitive data can have real-world consequences.

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) is backing the approach, and as NCSC CEO Richard Horne says: “The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is a landmark moment,” adding that “It will improve the cyber defences of the critical services on which we rely every day, such as water, power and healthcare.”

Datacentres and the Next Phase of CNI Regulation

The government is also strongly considering bringing datacentre operators into the bill’s remit, a step it hinted at last year when these facilities were designated as critical national infrastructure (CNI).

If passed, this could affect more than 180 UK-based datacentres and over 60 operators, according to industry figures. While exact compliance requirements haven’t yet been defined, it’s expected that these facilities will be subject to the same incident reporting rules and real-time intervention powers as other in-scope entities.

What’s more, ministers are exploring the use of AI tools to help detect and respond to threats inside these physical and virtual infrastructure hubs.

Mandatory Incident Reporting Tightens Timelines

Another key change is a tightening of mandatory reporting timelines. Organisations in scope of the CSR Bill will need to notify regulators and the NCSC of significant incidents within 24 hours – faster than the 72-hour window required by both the EU’s NIS2 directive and the US’s CIRCIA.

A full report must follow within 72 hours, creating a dual-stage reporting process that places UK organisations under one of the most stringent regulatory regimes in the world.

As technology secretary Peter Kyle says: “This is not just red tape,” but rather “It’s about making sure we know, quickly, when something serious is happening – and being able to act fast.”

Why This Isn’t a ‘One and Done’ Job

Legal experts and cyber risk consultants are warning that the scale of the challenge posed by the new rules is significant, i.e. not just in terms of cost, but also the time and effort required. For example, even well-resourced organisations could find the process of aligning legacy infrastructure with modern cyber resilience standards a long and complex task.

The key point that many are making is that cyber security is not something that can be addressed once and then forgotten. With threats constantly evolving, businesses will need to build ongoing investment and regular system upgrades into their operations. The burden, therefore, isn’t going to be just technical, but will also demand sustained leadership focus and cultural change across entire workforces. In other words, achieving compliance in this case is going to be a continuous journey.

Statutory Powers and Strategic Priorities

As well as giving regulators sharper enforcement tools, the bill proposes that the government publish a unified Statement of Strategic Priorities (updated every three to five years) to guide the approach of different regulators. This aims to bring consistency and clarity to enforcement across sectors, ensuring that energy, healthcare, and IT providers all face comparable expectations.

The government would also be granted the power to issue emergency directions to organisations where needed. This could prove vital in responding to fast-moving attacks, such as zero-day exploits or geopolitical cyber events.

Rising Threats, Rising Costs

The need for faster, tougher intervention isn’t theoretical. In 2023, attacks on UK utility firms surged by 586 per cent, according to reinsurance firm Chaucer. The NCSC dealt with 89 nationally significant incidents (up from 62 the previous year) including 12 so serious they required COBR (Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms) meetings.

Notably, one of the most damaging incidents of last year (i.e. the ransomware attack on NHS blood testing partner Synnovis) cost the NHS an estimated £32 million! Analysts have suggested that a well-coordinated attack on the energy grid in southeast England could cost the UK economy up to £49 billion!

In light of this, the CSR Bill is not just about compliance, but is also about protecting national prosperity.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The details of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill seem to show that the intention is to move things from reactive firefighting to proactive, enforceable standards. For UK businesses, particularly those in the technology supply chain, the message is that cybersecurity isn’t simply optional, nor is it simply an IT issue. It is now a board-level priority with legal and financial consequences attached.

While some organisations, especially larger providers, may already have mature systems in place, many will find that aligning with the new expectations demands more than just a policy refresh. Compliance will mean revisiting internal processes, investing in tools and training, and developing the ability to respond quickly and transparently to incidents. Smaller IT firms, regional MSPs, and niche datacentre operators, who may not have considered themselves part of critical national infrastructure until now, are likely to face the steepest learning curve.

The government’s aim appears to be to ensure the resilience of the UK’s digital backbone, and it is using both carrot and stick to get there. On one hand, businesses are being offered access to NCSC resources and support frameworks like Cyber Essentials. On the other, they face heavy penalties if they fail to take action when directed. Regulators, too, will be expected to step up, with clearer powers and more tools to enforce consistent, effective oversight across all sectors.

For regulators, IT service providers, and businesses that rely on outsourced digital infrastructure, the implications are far-reaching. In the short term, there may be uncertainty over exactly how these rules will be applied and interpreted, especially as the list of in-scope organisations grows. But in the long term, the bill signals a new era in which resilience and responsiveness are the benchmark for doing business in a connected economy.

The stakes are high but, looking on the positive side, so is the opportunity to build a more secure, digitally confident UK. With attacks becoming more frequent, more sophisticated, and more costly, the government is hoping that strong, enforceable rules are the best way to safeguard both national infrastructure and future economic growth. For those now falling under the scope of this legislation, the clock has started ticking.